You're smarter than this. THE FUCK MAKES YOU THINK SO A sentiment like this betrays a gawping lack of understanding around fascism, populism and politics. You wouldn't say "we'll just have another Obama" or "we'll just have another Hilary" or "we'll just have an other Reagan" or even "we'll just have another Mitt Romney." WHO. WHO is your household-named Russian tool blowhard running in 2028? Peter Thiel? Surprise! Born in Frankfurt to Germans. Elon Musk? South African. JD Vance? Have you seen that mutherfucker talk. Who's the populist who's gonna rise up instead of Trump in the next four years? Gimme your best bets. Your understanding of history fucking sucks because you haven't listened to a word I've said in eight goddamn years. It was called "January 6" and they lost. Everything else has been a contentious free-for-all to figure out how the fuck to move on. Nobody's happy, everyone regrets it, nothing is set in stone, things could still swing the other way but every day brings us further and further from the inflection point. Death threats from Trump's cult have proven to be extremely lucrative and clout-building... unless you're Republican. And that's a dynamic that, if you actually listened when asking for historic examples, you'd grasp: a populist who protects his retinue is an iconoclast. A populist who eats his retinue is a despot. Both iconoclasts and despots need to be entirely free of reasonable threats to their power and we fucking voted Trump out of office. That, really, was his mistake and he made it because he's a fucking idiot: don't act like a dictator until you actually are one. Counterpoint? he wouldn't have been elected if he didn't act like a dictator. The system was incompatible with Trump's goals in 2020 and it has only become less compatible over time. I don't think we have nothing to worry about? But I also find this "and then Mike Johnson just doesn't seat Democrats and we all sit on our hands and go merrily to hell" bullshit extremely tiresome. There are enough problems in the world to worry about without carving doomer fanfic into your gray matter. The whole way we got here is we were incapable of grasping demagoguery as anything short of Hitler. So when Trump did his demagogic best the Left went "see? HITLER!" without having a fucking clue about Hitler or Trump. It's all right there. Everything you need to grasp WTF is going on. All you have to do is take off the HitlerSpex.we'll simply have another younger and just as demented figurehead of Trumpism in 2028.
In my understanding of history,
there is no shaking it off without some violent, near-cataclysmic reckoning.
staying quiet becuase ya don't wanna get death threats from Trump's cult.
Actually, JD Vance would be one of my top picks, yeah. Eyeliner included. Others: O'Keefe, Hawley, Cotton, Mike Lee, Kristi Noem, and Stefanik. I have seem them all talk. Am I impressed? Fuck no, but probably not too many actual analysts thought DeSantis would get as far as he did when he took his stab. Guy's obviously a psychopath. I mean look, Sununu thought he would give the party a way back to the moderate path, and Tim Scott probably still thinks he's in the running for VP. Nikki Haley thinks the same, but she knows she still has to pretend like slavery was about state's rights. None of them seem to have a pulse on what the party really wants. I will concede that it's encouraging to see Haley clearly stating that Trump lost the election and not losing all of her support. You once said, fairly recently, that people want to get back to boring politics. Reasonable folks, yes, but I feel like the MAGAs passionately want to keep doing politics as sport (the sport is vengeance/grievance) and entertainment. For the entertainment part, it's going to be particularly difficult to fill Trump's clown shoes. He just has "it". The clowning spirit. Almost no one else does, though they may try. Jim Jordan, Rand Paul, Comer, everyone I listed earlier, I think the showmanship and likeability is a massive hurdle that they haven't yet figured out who has the best chance of clearing. Charlie Kirk can't even let himself full-on smile much, for Chrissakes. Not even trying to be mean, just realistic. (stealing this diss format from Trump) If I was trying to be mean, I'd call him Gumsey McKirken, but we're not mean, are we folks? If we had moved on, the prosecutions would be over, Trump wouldn't still be lying about it, and the GOP wouldn't be helping him do it. Ideally, yep, he'd be cellmates with Navarro. He won't let the GOP move on because 2020 is also about 2024. The familiarity of "they cheated Trump again!" is powerful, and he's the master of repetition-based MaNiFeStiNg. At least he figured out that he can't slander voting machine companies though, courtesy of Murdoch. Lawsuits with heavy monetary penalties are the only language he understands "NO" in, confirmed by E. Jean Carroll. I promise that I listen. You do convince me of some things, but I think you have to concede that if I'd asked you two or three years ago if Trump would be the GOP's guy again in 2024, you'd have said no, right? We agree that Trump has done this repeatedly, burned almost every bridge, but he's somehow still got new up-and-comers who'll happily let him ruin them. Everyone who crosses him is a RINO. He wouldn't still be the undisputed singular embodiment of the party if this strategy wasn't somehow still working for him. No, it doesn't make sense to me either. We did. Barely. The 8 million popular vote disparity that the libs love to trot out isn't as relevant as only about 70k people spread between three swing states for the margin of loss in the electoral college. I'm pretty sure that if covid never came along, he'd still be president. The only question is whether we all sit on our hands, because Johnson will try anything. Which is why I'm here, now, saying "hey there's a really good chance we're gonna have to stop sitting on our hands soon". I'm obviously less sanguine about trusting the dems to come out swingin'. Some will, I know. The squad, Goldman, Frost, Ro Khanna. Maybe Bernie. I'm hoping Jeffries, Pelosi, and Schumer have it in them. I dunno man, the doomerism predictions have been going pretty well for me. And then if I'm wrong, it's a pleasant surprise when things don't deteriorate as bad as they possibly could have. I think you feel like teh doomz are something I derive joy from(?). I do not. And I am sorry to keep re-hashing this out with you. You're never required to respond, it's just that most people are so far removed from discussing any of this in depth with a holistic perspective that you're a massive resource. I can assure you that I take no pleasure in disagreeing on some of these details time and time again, because we really do largely agree, especially when it comes to actionable shit. WHO is your household-named Russian tool blowhard running in 2028?
It was called "January 6" and they lost. Everything else has been a contentious free-for-all to figure out how the fuck to move on.
Your understanding of history fucking sucks because you haven't listened to a word I've said in eight goddamn years.
A populist who eats his retinue is a despot.
we fucking voted Trump out of office.
But I also find this "and then Mike Johnson just doesn't seat Democrats and we all sit on our hands and go merrily to hell" bullshit extremely tiresome.
carving doomer fanfic into your gray matter.
You're so close to getting it. Donald Trump is a carnival barker. So was Hugo Chavez, so was Huey Long, So was Benito Mussolini. Historically, carnival barkers have ended up in the church because a pastor who can deliver a rousing message to reassure his flock is a valuable thing indeed. It's a symbiotic relationship - he makes them feel batter about their lives, they puff him up and make him important, everybody wins. I mean that sincerely. A good charismatic leader who values the well-being of his followers? That's how history is made, the good kind. It goes wrong when the carnival barker is venal. When the barking matters more than who is listening it can take off on its own. I know Rulon Jeffs was a good carnival barker because he absolutely inspired a lot of craziness among people who weren't getting their best shake and they just took it. I know Warren Jeffs wasn't because shit fell apart on his watch. Note that Warren Jeffs never would have built his own flock. He's too venal. He does not tend to the organization, he makes sure the organization tends to him. That's an important factor, too - the shitty ones usually toil in ignominy because they don't have the makeup to create a self-perpetuating organization. Joseph Smith? Never met the man but you can't deny he started something big. Hell, William Wilson made something that lasts. But for every Hugo Chavez there's a Nick Maduro, for every Rulon there's a Warren. You know what I'm reading right now? Marx & Engels, The Communist Manifesto. I keep meaning to read The Condition of the Working Class in England because fundamentally, the basis of Communism was the British being horrible but I needed something audible and the library had The Communist Manifesto. It's puerile. It's accelerationist. It uses the word "highfalutin" which is hilarious. But it is also a deeply unserious work. You know what's an interesting book? 1917: Lenin, Wilson and the Birth of the New World. 'cuz here's the thing. Neither Marx nor Lenin thought Russia was a good spot to debut Communism but the opportunity arose. Neither Marx nor Lenin had any respect for Russia or Russians and it shows. They really figured America was the perfect place for Communism to take root and fundamentally, 1917 is a book about how wretchedly, hopelessly full of shit they were. Communism took root in Russia because it was a weakly-run hinterland with ridiculous wealth concentration and a history of warlord rule. It was a weak power structure where a weak insurgency could overthrow an unpopular monarchy and consolidate power because once you decapitate a monarchy you're the new king. Lenin Stalin Khruschev Brezhnev Andropov Chernenko Gorbachev Yeltsin Putin Medvedev Putin 110 years right there and really, we shouldn't count Lenin, Chernenko or Medvedev. Stalin ruled almost as long as Katherine the Great. It did not take root in America because Americans went "huh, the proletariat is restless, let's make their lives suck less lest we find ourselves guillotined." 1917 is fundamentally a book about how structures respond to stress. _______________________________________ Shah Reza Pahlavi was a weak man. Mossadegh was also a weak man, but he was stronger than the Shah... until that was inconvenient to our purposes at which point we gave him the strength he needed. Tsar Nicholas was a weak man. Lenin was also a weak man but he was useful to the Germans and he was useful to Stalin. Donald Trump is not a builder, no matter how much he thinks it will make the ghost of his daddy love him. He's an oaf eating sticks of butter like they were Snickers bars, the perfect face of a greedy power structure that has long stopped trying to make anything. The system had to be weak for Trump to happen and, once Trump happened, things could have collapsed. But they didn't. ________________________________________ This is me calling you out: It has been patently obvious since January 7th 2021 that the Republican candidate for president in 2024 would be Donald Trump. The Republican Party is in a doom loop. They know it. We know it. Everyone knows it. They sold their soul for this and they were never more than one demagogue away from it happening. I'm old enough that I remember when we thought it would be Pat Buchanan! But no, they needed someone trashier who had been introduced into more living rooms as a virile and successful man-about-town. But it has been equally obvious that you can't step in the same river twice. What do you know about Reconstruction? I knew fuckall because there's a lot of hand-waving and coughing and hastily moving on in every history class in the United States so I read WEB Dubois' history and I was shamed. I was moved. I was cowed. Because the 60 years after the Civil War were all about doing anything not to have to fight it again, no matter the costs to Black people, no matter the gains by Southern racists, because oh holy fuck if the British had gotten ahold of the South the rest of us would be a suburb of Canada. Woodrow Wilson advised Truman a lot, believe it or not. And after VE Day Wilson told Truman that he could have vengeance or he could have peace but he couldn't have both. And that's the New World Order right there -letting the guys who got all the gold keep it so that the Communists don't try something. I say " Everything else has been a contentious free-for-all to figure out how the fuck to move on" and you go "f we had moved on, the prosecutions would be over, Trump wouldn't still be lying about it, and the GOP wouldn't be helping him do it. " Yes. You're right. IF we had moved on, yes. Or maybe things would be even shittier, like Reconstruction. But we HAVEN'T moved on. We're all trying to negotiate a way to be friends with the uncles who cheered on someone taking a shit on Nancy Pelosi's desk. We're trying to figure out how to live with the Hang Mike Pence crew. Because you have to win the peace, too. Winning the peace doesn't mean spooling up fever dreams about JD Vance successfully launching a presidential run. I mean are you fucking serious. The only contenders in the race that even thought about criticizing Trump dropped out early because of course an appalling percentage of the country wants nothing more than to own the libs. That's never going to change. What's going to change is their ability to hurt the rest of us. Trends of history aligned in 2016 to express a worldwide backlash against neoliberalism. That backlash took the form of fascism, some more some less. Those trends have not been arrested but they have been slowed. And yeah, it fucking sucks. And it's fucking uncomfortable. And it's scary - the Democrats are all in. They're betting on a Republican collapse. They're betting that if they can keep enough people from getting swept up in the vortex they'll be able to make a government again and there's no precedent for this in living memory. But there is historical precedence. Hitler arose in a shattered economy ruled by venal elites. So did Marcos, so did Pol Pot, so did Lenin. The closest we ever got here was Huey Long and he got sidelined when FDR said "hey those are some good policies how 'bout I just take most of them." Trump? Trump is the effect, not the cause. If he had more sense he would have stayed out of it. But he was the right person at the right time with the right amount of vanity and the right amount of stupidity and here we are, four years later and the pied piper is still piping. But there will be no one after Warren Jeffs.but I think you have to concede that if I'd asked you two or three years ago if Trump would be the GOP's guy again in 2024, you'd have said no, right?
Excellent response, and great book recommends. Thanks. Sorry, I actually read you wrong on this, you said yourself in the text I quoted in my last reply that we hadn't really moved on. Not sure what happened on my end. It's not because he doesn't want to, but yes, I agree, he will never be met with success. No one that I named would. Their attempts at carnival barking aren't the refined, chaotic humor that Trump seems to naturally emanate. I can't think of anyone who'd be successful, honestly. Like even if MTG wasn't as stupid/crazy as she is, she just isn't funny or entertaining enough. I hope so, because SCOTUS is further gone than even a lot of cynics thought they might be. Now I'm wondering whether the Koch's stopping support for Haley was only about South Carolina, or if it was because they got early wind of the decision to take up presidential immunity (and likely not rule on it until fucking JUNE), which will almost certainly postpone Trump's J6 trial until after the election. There will probably be no conviction, and certainly no sentencing. Obviously, they will rule that presidents are not free to break the law with impunity, but they've effectively given it to him anyway for the election. And (stole this from Maddow, no shame, she's right) the incentive structure that would set up if he wins guaran-fk'n-tees that he'll never leave office in 2029. Voting is all we have. And on the one hand, you're right, the party is the weakest it's ever been, popularity-wise, financially, and with respect to ability, but it's very clear that most of their focus is going to be put not into winning elections, but instead, doing everything they can to delegitimize and sabotage elections (like this failed attempt last night by some Turning Point USA idiot, Aubrey). Let's hope our institutions can weather it, and let's pray any firestorms don't involve SCOTUS. They know exactly what they did, yesterday. It's not a legitimate court.Yes. You're right. IF we had moved on, yes. Or maybe things would be even shittier, like Reconstruction. But we HAVEN'T moved on.
JD Vance successfully launching a presidential run
What's going to change is their ability to hurt the rest of us.
The Supreme Court has not surprised me since June 2012, when Roberts ruled "mmmyeah, healthcare gets to stand because of interstate commerce laws." We were coming back from Vandenberg, having shot a video of the Delta IV Heavy with the last KH11 go up, specifically to spy on bin Laden. Listening to NPR for some reason and lo and behold, Obamacare. It's abundantly clear that Roberts' politics are to the right of mine but it's also clear he values his job over his ideology. That's what's saved the court in the past - pragmatism. They have no enforcement arm. They rely on reasonable agreement between the branches or it all falls apart. The "switch in time that saved nine" was a conservative court not wanting the New Deal so badly they were willing to become 17 justices. There are pragmatists on the court. There are also lazy, incompetent ideologues who are perfectly happy to go "myeah, let's just toss Roe because we fucking feel like it." The more ideological the court becomes, the more they depend on their ideology being in office to not get circumvented. Lost in all this shirt rending is the undeniable reality that the Republicans have the positions they do because of parliamentary procedure, not popularity; they acknowledged back in Tom DeLay's time that they were going to be a permanent minority and the only way to preserve power was through gerrymandering and packing the court. And it either goes full fascism or it snaps back. Period.
No, I agree that Roberts might genuinely think that he's tending to the legitimacy of SCOTUS by doing this normally. But at least four or five of the other justices are pushing for this out of ideology.Roberts' politics are to the right of mine but it's also clear he values his job over his ideology.
What's sad is that Trump's expectation that they immediately take it up and grant him immunity because he appointed three of them provides cover for them to drag this out by saying "look, we didn't do exactly what Trump wanted", even though the effect of this delay is exactly the same.
What's the democrats plan to restore legitimacy to the court?
I haven't seen any discussion on it. pretty much any discussion of the supreme court gets howls of "COURT PACKING!!!!!!1111one" so I'd probably play it close to my chest, too. If you look at actions, you see Biden appointing women and minorities nearly as fast as Trump appointed lickspittles. Meanwhile the conservatives are really mad about the idea that there has historically been one supreme court justice per circuit, which would put the number at 13.
I have aboslutely no faith that they will be willing to do it. They couldn't break the filibuster for Obamacare with almost a supermajority, and the filibuster is a boring procedural thing you have to be tricked into caring about. Adding more justices is the right thing to do, but its dramatic. I'd love to be proven wrong [edit: what's your opinion on impeachment? I always thought that was the more politically correct option and the results are the same]
So there's "your faith" and there's "where things go." If there's any one nugget I want you to keep in mind it's this: Joe Biden's career was destroyed 27 years ago. Pulled out of the presidential race in shame. Chaos reigned, articles about how everyone who was anyone knew he was a cheating fucktard who needed to burn in flames. Then Lee Atwater died. I've said this before and I'll say it again - Biden - and the Democrats who grew up with him - have been battle-tested by the meanest mutherfucker ever to grace the campaign stage. They were fucking flayed. You wanna talk straight antichrist it's Lee Fucking Atwater and everything that has come after has been comic opera in comparison. The heinous political environment we inhabit now was built, brick by brick, by a dude so evil his own brain killed him for the betterment of all mankind. Every skirmish since then has been in the ashes of his conflagration - ain't no Contract With America without Morning in America, ain't no Tea Party without Contract with America, ain't no Make America Great Again without Tea Party. But you can't say "maybe they're more clever than we give them credit for" without some wag bringing up "3d chess" like somehow being smart is worthy of snark in and of itself. I think impeachment was a foregone fucking conclusion until Lee Atwater led the party to a place of antibellum evil. Now? I mean just fuckin' ask Moscow Mitch.
I don't get your conclusion, Mitch has been pushed out of his party for not being MAGA enough, but I don't see how that relates. Packing the courts seems so out of character for them. I think if they win they'll legislate around the court as much as they can, and otherwise just accept losing. They know how to lose pretty well, I think they're used to it at this point. Id give 100:1 odds that by the end of the next term, they have not packed the court, and 10:1 odds that Biden never even pitches the option
I think impeachment was a foregone fucking conclusion until Lee Atwater led the party to a place of antibellum evil. Now? I mean just fuckin' ask Moscow Mitch. I'm also kinda puzzling over those paragraphs. It seems like you're saying that Congress impeaching a SCOTUS judge was never going to happen until the GOP went off the deep end starting with Atwater, and McConnell's 2016 shenanigans now make impeachment something that's on the table? But they're not even considering it, even as Clarence Thomas refuses to recuse when we know his wife is batshit fuckin' crazy and was involved in the insurrection herself. Just posting this for alllllllll to see: I mean what in the FUCK?!? A SCOTUS spouse. Who is known to deeply influence the SCOTUS member. Is in fucking Q-Anon. And there is a 0% chance that she's realized the error of her ways. What a goddamn joke that the dems are throwing up their hands.But you can't say "maybe they're more clever than we give them credit for" without some wag bringing up "3d chess" like somehow being smart is worthy of snark in and of itself.
She sent messages that had been making the rounds on pro-Trump sites, where anger over the election echoed her own raw feelings, including this passage: “Biden crime family & ballot fraud co-conspirators (elected officials, bureaucrats, social media censorship mongers, fake stream media reporters, etc) are being arrested & detained for ballot fraud right now & over coming days, & will be living in barges off GITMO to face military tribunals for sedition.”
So let me start by saying that I think SCOTUS is for the most part a group of a few decent thinkers and a slew of partisan hacks. Not going to argue otherwise. However, I actually think that they had to take the immunity case. They didn't get to test the BS about "If the president does it, it's not illegal" back in the 70s because of the Nixon pardon. They haven't had an occasion to do so since, so even though the lower courts basically laughed Trump out of court, I still think in the long run it's incumbent on Roberts to lay the smack down for any future presidents who claim to be above the law. Which is silly, I know, because the facile imagination one needs to possess to show how ridiculous that claim is basically makes it self-evident to anyone who isn't comatose (looking at you Justice Thomas). But still. Two president-crooks have tried to make the claim, so it needs to be addressed. As for leaving office in 2029, I think it's a misreading of the tea leaves. First of all, the president doesn't get to decide whether to leave office. More or less, the military does (which hopefully it will never come to that). But all the military officers I know (not tons but a few) are not in favor of dictatorship. Seems to be part of the coursework at Westpoint or something. But beyond that, Trump is going to pardon himself on day 1, and there's no way that works itself through the courts until after his term ends, and then we're talking probably another two years. So 2031 best care scenario? He'll be 85. Nobody is sending an 85 yo to jail, let alone an 85 yo former president. Hell, he'll probably have clogged his arteries so badly by that point that he'll be fortunate to not be full tits-up. So while I don't look forward to 4 more years of nonsense, I also think that the story will write its own end in a way.
If SCOTUS felt like they needed to "supremely" settle whether or not a president is immune for crimes while presidenting, they had the opportunity to do so, when Jack Smith put the question to them in December. They said "nope, we don't want to", and punted it back to the DC appellate court. The three judges in the appellate court wrote a long, technical ruling savaging the Trump camp's arguments, which was appealed, like we all expected. So it's back to SCOTUS. For them to now say "oh, wow, well we haven't really thought about it, and we'll have to hear oral arguments, hmmmmm, how about starting in two months?" is a fucking joke. We all know that they won't allow absolute immunity, because that'd be irreversibly squandering the power of the judiciary, among other issues. The appellate ruling was so well done that it would have been more than acceptable to slap the SCOTUS seal of approval on it and call it a day, either by not taking it up or with a quick certification, or at least by expediting the process like they have for the Trump vs. Colorado insurrection-ballot-removal case. This affects the election too, so if one case requires quick attention, so should the other. Coincidentally, the quick Colorado case ruling is going to help Trump, and the slow presidential immunity ruling is going to help Trump. I've heard people say that this schedule is actually pretty fast-tracked for this SCOTUS, and... OK? I do not give a shit that they've already lowered the bar of expectations for themselves. This is obviously a massive win that they have handed Donald Trump, and not by accident. Any dumbass arguing in good faith knows that this needs to be resolved ASAP, and that's simply not what they're doing. And they know it. Pretending like this is even worthy of their time is part of their act. He doesn't even really need to pardon himself, because DoJ won't prosecute a sitting president. But I agree, he'll do it anyway, for fun, and headlines, and because now the taxpayer will be picking up the tab for all the legal proceedings. I have also realized, maybe about a year ago or so, that he'll never go to prison, no matter what. But a conviction on the J6 stuff might finally be enough to tank him in the election.
All you need to know about the Supreme Court is in their 2000 Bush V. Gore decision, whereby they say "we're giving this to Bush because we fucking well feel like it, it will never set any sort of precedent, except we know damn well it will, eat it libs."
I think it's already tanking him. Sorry to play the perennial optimist, but if you look at the recent primaries, Trump has underperformed his polling, which I would argue is already really bad for an incumbent, by at least 5-10 points (so keep that in mind when you read he's "up" by 5 points or whatever on Biden, especially since incumbents typically poll badly early in the election year). His campaign may be inevitable, as we continually hear, but it's also a complete fucking catastrophe from a X's and O's point of view. Meanwhile, the "uncommitted" vote we also have to endure endless commentary about actually wasn't that much higher than Obama's share of uncommitted in 2012, whereas total Biden votes dwarfed what Obama got. Basically what that says is that even though a lot of people in Michigan wanted to express dissatisfaction, way, way more people wanted to counter that narrative.I have also realized, maybe about a year ago or so, that he'll never go to prison, no matter what. But a conviction on the J6 stuff might finally be enough to tank him in the election.
I don't really pay much heed to polls and primary statistics, but I can tell you this: It is nothing short of a travesty that there is any debate or room for interpretation about this at all. Not just because of how depressing it that we have Mussolini (or whoever) incarnate still at least kinda holding his own, but because any amount of closeness in the race will help legitimize those who will dispute the election results. On January 7th, 2021, I was optimistic too. "He shot his shot and it failed", I thought. "He'll be excommunicated from the GOP, and everybody will agree that he's earned himself imprisonment". Not just from the rally, telling the crowd to march to the capitol, and the J6 physical violence on TV, we already knew about the fake electors scheme, pressuring the DoJ, hamstringing the capitol police, the fact that he did fuck-all as everything unfolded, etc., and I thought DoJ would build an investigation immediately and have him on trial by spring of '22. It's better to just expect the worst. But within reason. Speaking of, it'd be fun to try and predict the verbiage in the inevitable dissent from Alito and Thomas on this ruling, explaining how GOP presidents are immune from prosecution, but dems should be held accountable, actually. I'll think about that.
Could be a dissent or could actually be a concurring opinion. I think (stress think) that even Alito wouldn't argue that GOP presidents are above the law completely and totally, but he'll try to argue that in this case it didn't reach the level where immunity is forfeited. They'll whine about free speech or something totally beside the point.
I think you're right that Trump is doing badly. I think Klein's right that Roe v Wade is very motivating. I think Biden is not beloved, and if you believe what's happening in Gaza is a genocide, being able to take a moral stance on "never voting for a genocider" is a hard line in the ground to argue against and means you get to feel brave voting aginst someone you didn't really like to begin with. If the war isn't over and the Palestinians made whole it will be a very tight race. I'd give Biden the odds, but I did in 2016 too
Been trying my damndest not to get drawn into the Gaza shit, but there's no reasonable definition of "genocide" that applies here. One can argue about how they're prosecuting the war, but they're fighting a government who refuses to surrender. Today's Left would have accused the US of genocide in Germany and Japan in WW2. It's full and pure nonsense. In war, people die and it's sad. It doesn't make it genocide. And it's insulting to actual genocides that have taken place.
Oof. OOF. I worry that because the tankies have made their blanket anti-US stance on Palestine-Israel quite clear, it's played into you crafting a blanket anti-tankie stance on the issue. I hate the tankies, but history will remember this as a genocide. Hamas is absolutely complicit in exacerbating and prolonging it, but Israel's literally carpet bombing the places that they told the citizen population to take refuge in. They're withholding as much humanitarian aid from Palestine as they can. Famine is setting in. Hamas is irredeemably terrible, but they don't have blank checks from America for all of the weapons money can buy. Oct. 7th was a goddamn tragedy, but now the disparity in death tolls is something like a factor of 50. Israel did exactly what we did after 9/11. They went to "war" with guerilla terrorists, civilian collateral bedamned. In time, this will be viewed in a very similar light, and, worse, it's just gonna make a shitton more terrorists.
I would compare it more to what happened in Bosnia than to the atomic bomb. But you're right, dropping the abomb has also fallen out of favor with the left
I think it's true that there were a net number of lives saved from the a-bombs, and if America didn't use 'em, the Soviets would've demonstrated the tech in another few years. Even if WWII was over. It might have tilted the Cold War in favor of the Soviet Union for a long time. I'm glad I'm not Oppenheimer, though.
Operation Downfall called for SIXTEEN atomic bombs. Basically nuke it, march through the fallout, nuke it, march through the fallout, nuke it, march through the fallout, up to Tokyo. And if they had to keep going after that well, the US will have had time to make more bombs. People forget that the B-29 was more expensive and more of a strategic priority than the Manhattan Project. People also forget that Germany spent more on the V-2 than the US spent on the Atomic Bomb. "Big boom" is the horror weapon we all freak out about now but the WWII mentality was "the way we win this is by indiscriminate unguided bombing at scale from an extreme distance." We've created this false narrative around "should the US have used a horrific weapon like the atomic bomb" when the real dilemma, acknowledged by both the United States and Japan, was "will the Japanese be made extinct as an ethnicity before hostilities are over." The truth of the situation is the Emperor of Japan saw Hiroshima, went "stop this madness", was nearly murdered by a military junta, and enough loyalists regained control for the Emperor to declare unconditional surrender after Nagasaki. Anyone who wants to waffle around the absolute and total genocide anticipated by both sides of the conflict is a simp. We were gonna turn Japan into Carthage and the Japanese were all in on it.
Yeah :/, there's definitely a pragmatic case to be made. And it wasn't a genocide. But wow was it horrific for a bunch of civilians.
But it's the same basic calculation there as in any total war, which is that your objective is complete capitulation of the enemy, knowing full well that a cease fire only delays and probably exacerbates the killing. In the case of Germany, Japan or Hamas, an unconditional surrender is the endgame. That differentiates it completely from other interethnic conflicts that were not about surrender but annihilation. The reason I'm hesitant to weigh in is that if I say, "this isn't genocide", it doesn't mean I think there's no moral culpability or that the objectives couldn't be satisfied in a less awful way. Maybe they can. I don't know the situation on the ground any better than you do. It's just not a genocide, no matter how people want to remember it, because the aim is the elimination of a government, not of a people.
They are deliberately starving them, burning their food, denying aid. They've moved all the civilians into one city and are now bombing it indiscriminately. They fire onto unarmed civilians, even killing their own hostages shirtless waving a white flag. They are bulldozing houses and building settlements on their land. 75% of all structures have been destroyed. This is not total war. Hamas can barely fight back. Post Oct 7th, a fifth of the IDFs 188 deaths have been friendly fire. It is a slaughter by a government that promises that there will never be a Palestinian state.
You're arguing against a strawman. Nowhere did I say that the Netanyahu government is correct in their prosecution of the war. I said it's not a genocide, because it's aims aren't genocidal, they're statecraft. Pointing out how bad conditions are there isn't a counterargument.
I don't think that's really true, though. Sometimes the framing of things in terms of statecraft is abandoned entirely: There are many other statements from top government officials in this vein. The hatred runs deeeeeeeeeep. Goes both ways, of course, but this is incredibly asymmetric warfare, if it's warfare at all.it's aims aren't genocidal, they're statecraft
This week alone, a parliamentarian from Netanyahu’s Likud party went on television and said it was clear to most Israelis that “all the Gazans need to be destroyed.” Then, Israel’s ambassador in Britain told local radio that there was no other solution for her country than to level “every school, every mosque, every second house” in Gaza to degrade Hamas’s military infrastructure.
Right, but think about the ambassador's words for a minute. Early in the war there was a lot of handwringing about Israeli soldiers shooting up a hospital. The fact is, when you suspect that there's a weapons cache inside a hospital, you try to enter it. When people start shooting at you from inside, then you shoot your way in. The trouble is that Hamas freely admits to using hospitals, schools and mosques as places to shield fighters and materiel. That's the context around what she's saying there. It's shitty, but you still have to leap a giant chasm to get from there to genocide (there's a good reason that Arabs can be doctors, lawyers and cabinet ministers in Israel, but Jews (not Israelis) aren't even allowed to be tourists inside many Muslim countries). From October 7 onward, Hamas could have saved every single Gazan civilian by offering an unconditional surrender. They haven't and they won't. That's on them.
This is not to defend what Hamas did on Oct 7. But Ukraine could also stop all the killings with unconditional surrender. Israel wants complete military domination and will not accept any Palestinian state.
nah, you're right though. this sucks. i'm sorry for hubski being nothing but politics, i take the blame for a lot of that. it's not helpful. it's not fun. i like this place and the people a lot, I don't wanna be the one making it worse. i have a hard time not engaging and its clearly not making things better or anyone including myself happy see you in a while hopefully. can't wait to catch up on the CNC machine progress & the watch drama, that's been my favorite part & it's getting drowned out
It'd be nice if substantive debates were happening anywhere else. The ICJ and UN are about it.
Israel has decided that the only way to eliminate the Palestinian government is to eliminate the people. The exact degree to which this is true is something of a mystery, I agree, but I find it awfully convenient that the timing coincides with when Netanyahu needs to wage "war" for political convenience. And like I've said elsewhere, it would not at all surprise me to learn later that Israeli intel knew of an impending terrorist attack large enough to kill 1,160 Israelis and decided to sit back and let it happen. Supposedly their intel is the best in the world relative to their population size. Makes sense, they have the money for it. But yes, Hamas has lost some of my sympathy by recently refusing any terms of a ceasefire. But they understand that if they surrender, they'll be facing even less representation in Israeli politics than on October 6th. Which is how this all started anyway. edit: well, it really started with Israel being carved out of Palestine, but if we, erm, can.. forgive... the first Nakba... I think Israel should exist, but they sure as hell aren't making it easy for me. The left is correct about this one, but anyone pro-Palestine and also pro-Russia can be discarded.the aim is the elimination of a government, not of a people.
Most of the narrative around the formation of Israel is not grounded in history, unfortunately. My guess is that you're unaware that net migration into the area that is now Israel between the beginning of the Zionist movement and 1948 was far higher among Arabs than Jews. That's due to the fact that (a) only Bedouins lived there until the Jews started irrigating the land, which suddenly made a backwater shithole arable for the first time in centuries, and (b) the British really didn't want to cede territory to the Jews, the "problem" of which they had already "solved" long before the rest of Europe.
it was not.. the vast majority of the growth in the arab population was due to natural population growth and not migration - and more jews than arabs migrated to the country in total. unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by net, you have it backwards. the majority of the arab population was settled even at the time of the mandate censuses. the idea that palestine was an empty land is a colonial myth of convenience.
They've proposed an permanent ceasefire in exchange for all hostages. Israel will only accept a temporary ceasefire.
Ah. Well, yeah. "Give us back our people and we will resume the killings" is not such a great deal, huh.
Speaking of the power of language, crazy how all the Palestinians captured without trial and held and tortured are "prisoners" and not "hostages"
Why didn't they take the case up the first time it was presented to them, or make any sort of expedited judgement? A swift ruling would have been slightly more decisive true, but I do not believe that's their goal. I'm with you that trump will not serve more than his four years.
If I remember right, Trump tried to appeal directly to SCOTUS off the bat, correct? My guess is that Roberts wanted the weight of having district and appellate court opinions on his side before making a judgement. He cares about process, and he was probably terrified that a rushed judgement would just create more chaos, especially when Thomas and probably Alito voted in favor of Trump. They are less likely to go against the majority of the Court now that they would have to refute two absolutely bulletproof opinions. My guess is that Roberts really, really wants this case to be about the President, and not Trump per se. And in that case, it's his judgement that it should be considered with the full weight of their normal process without reference to what's happening in the world at this precise moment. Just a guess, but I think probably a good one.
Then why stick it in the last possible slot and not give a reply until July, virtually guaranteeing that the trial isn't over before he's elected president? I think the idea is to get the best of both worlds, "credibility" by making the obviously correct ruling, while still allowing trump into office
It's not, and treating it like just another normal thing on the docket is a disservice to America. The country needs this resolved by trial ASAP, one way or another.It's just procedure.